Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:35:36PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: How does everyone feel about the proposed layout and syntaxes of GLEP 27? Do we want to revisit this GLEP with an updated GLEP or status quo? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html I'm strongly in favour of moving forward with it. Way back in the past of Gentoo, a stab was made at keeping a single static file, but nobody bothered with it, since it wasn't in the gentoo-x86 tree. For GLEP27, I believe there was a SoC some years ago implementing it, I don't know what became of that code. My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages are emerged in. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 pgpXjz9hpmpNX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
On 10-04-2008 16:35:36 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: How does everyone feel about the proposed layout and syntaxes of GLEP 27? Do we want to revisit this GLEP with an updated GLEP or status quo? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html See also: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53269 -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
Robin H. Johnson wrote: My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages are emerged in. Same here. Which is why I'm hoping to revitalize GLEP 27. -- Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
My specific interest in it is for having a sane UID/GIDs that are identical between a set of machines, regardless of the order packages are emerged in. I was initially surprised to see Gentoo didn't have written standards for UID/GID management, but don't see many other distros having one either. Would it be untoward to extend this GLEP to define both default ranges and an internal body to hand them out? I, for one, am aesthetically uncomfortable with processes like mysql and rpm using IDs 100, but don't have a clean technical argument as to why they shouldn't. It would also probably be fruitful to have enewgroup/enewuser check UID_MIN/GID_MIN instead of hard-coding the 101-999 search it does now. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting summary for 10 April 2008
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:37:31 -0700 Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's why I setup them up with the ability to rsync it, and they never got back to me on that, nor used it ever. Hrm, curious. They seem interested and alive currently. Perhaps it's worth another shot... I also queried them on the forum earlier this year, since none of my commits were listed. Here's the link (I do think this is worth looking into - note that the response what that they did not do CVS...): http://www.ohloh.net/forums/10/topics/1278 -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 27
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:35:36 -0400 Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does everyone feel about the proposed layout and syntaxes of GLEP 27? Do we want to revisit this GLEP with an updated GLEP or status quo? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0027.html This was my SoC project a few years back. I have the code mostly done, minus some more sanity checks, unit tests, testing by folks, and patch to jam it into portage (should be trivial for someone who knows portage's code, which I don't). The project is called Creandus, and you can find it at: http://creandus.pioto.org/ -- Mike Kelly -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans
So the point is, our current 2.6.24 kernel is safe. I can *not* confirm this. Just some days ago, I compiled hardened-sources-2.6.24 (which uses genpatches-2.6.24-5; current gentoo-sources uses genpatches-2.6.24-6, but the difference is obviously not important here [it involves just an #include for some exotic hardwar]). Result: Compiles fine with gcc-4.3 on x86 but dies immediately at boot (before printing anything) unless acpi=off is used. (And just to be sure, I disabled every acpi feature except general acpi support - same result). It is certainly a compiler problem, because with gcc-4.2 exactly the same kernel configuration (and even on amd64 with gcc-4.3 and analogous configuration) has no problem. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans
Vaeth wrote: Result: Compiles fine with gcc-4.3 on x86 but dies immediately at boot (before printing anything) unless acpi=off is used. (And just to be sure, I disabled every acpi feature except general acpi support - same result). Please file a bug at bugs,gentoo.org, our hardened team surely wants to know about that. Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
